Talk:Sye Ten Bruggencate
I've been watching this article take shape, anxiously waiting for it to actually describe ten Bruggencate's positions before rubbishing them as circular and what have you. It doesn't do a very good job and sort of reads like a hit piece. Will the author be offended if I get in on this? Ten Bruggencate's approach to presuppositionalism needs to be described a lot better (a) so it can be contrasted with those of competent apologists like John Frame and Greg Bahnsen and (b) so the article can touch on what you're really getting at: the natural consequences on public perception of being an extremely intelligent but impulsive amateur apologist possibly with bad judgment. He's a real dick, but he's not acting inconsistently with his understanding of reformed theology a la van Til. 18:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone should mention the calvinist school of presuppositionalist apologetics he derives his thought from. This is an extension and application of TAG which is derived from calvinists Cornelius Van Til and his disciple Greg Bahnsen. The extra twist Ten Bruggencate puts on it is to add the extremely dishonest debating tactic of denying his atheist detractors ANY say in the argument due to them "not having any foundation" to argue for anything, since the "laws of logic" are maintained by God. Youtube user C0nc0rdance has pointed out that the argument can be equally applied against a personal God, and for ontological realism. If one accepts that the laws of logic, mathematics, nature are intrinsic in nature as attributes of it, and thus objective, and making them dependent on the whims and maleability of a personal God, makes them both subjective and unreliable. Sye is inconsistent on this, since he a) Sometimes say that atheists are able to "apply" logic because they secretly really believe in God and willingy commit the sin of rejecting Him. b) Nevertheless say that they cannot use that logic to disprove God because their logic relies upon it in the first place. The foundational error he makes is the false dichotomy between "material" and "immaterial". A system is something more than the sum of its parts, yet still fully material. Computer software is another example. Laws of logic, nature, mathematics and morality could easily be said to belong to categories that do not fit this dichotomy.Xilu carim (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The author of this Sy Ten B entry has written slanderous lies about God. If the Bible is untrue, per this author's position, then how can he/she use it as evidence that God approves of rape, etc.? That notwithstanding, the Bible does not back-up this particular author's false claims. He/she writes without understanding of who/what the Amorites, for example, were and yet presumes to sit in judgment upon The Almighty. He/she may just as well announce to the world that he/she is a fool. — Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
Is this a Poe? The author is just showing that if this god exist he approves of rape, second of allits clear you just want a rationalization for mass killing (126.96.36.199 (talk)Tony188.8.131.52 (talk))
User:ORavenhurst reverted me here, without explanation. I think he is wrong, the D-K effect is NOT about "his own inability to differentiate between a description of X and an analysis of the description itself", nor is it about the "[delineation between] what something describes from what it means". Could someone please explain in what way the D-K effect applies here? Thanks! --184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, the D-K effect is basically when someone thinks they're great at something when they're not. A corollary of it is making the assumption that "because I can't do X, no one else can either". I.e., they feel as if they're at the top of the expertise/knowledge pile and no one is higher - which is false, and it's the D-K effect that contributes to that illusion. This isn't too dissimilar to Demski's bastardisation of irreducible complexity that effectively boils down to "I don't have the imagination/expertise to see how this evolved, therefore no one else can either". pathetic 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Important facts for research please.
Documental importance is required here. As if i am just reading a local newspaper. please re-edit your work. Thank you.
Closing mouths for Bruggencate's version of Jesus
In a recent video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zCK7awtHkQ) Bruggencate is giving a lecture where he says, "The role of apologetics is to close mouths" (Sye's emphasis). Maybe a good idea to insert this into the text somewhere, as it speaks volumes about what he's really trying to accomplish.
I saw a reference on the internet that Sye spent most of his adult life s a high school janitor, and came here looking to see if that is correct. But there is nothing here about his biography. Could someone with the requisite knowledge add something? It'sat least relevant if he has some sort of degree or something. -Pretty sure he was a machinist or in the engineering field.— Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk / contribs
tension between high profile atheists
Under the "Ten Bruggencate and atheism" section we read:
"Sye has even attracted some atheist fans who support him while debating atheists which makes him notorious in the Great Debate Community. A video of a female atheist named Godless Girl complimenting Sye for making arrogant atheists look dumb exploded in the community and caused much tension between high profile atheists."
It looks like Godless Girl has some 500 youtube followers and from the rather poor audio in the link she has some unusual ideas. I can't see any reference to tension between "high-profile atheists. Unless someone more knowledgeable than me can back this up I'll delete it in a few days. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)